Iraqi insurgents murder schoolchildren

Rock Climber

The other side of the coin is revealing itself, where Iraqi insurgents are showing they couldn't care less about their own people and like to maim and murder their own people including Children with impunity.

A police colonel said about 10 elementary school students whose bus had been passing at the time of the blast were among the dead.

The breaking news story can be found here

Distraught Iraqis stoned coalition forces trying to help

Which kind of goes to show the coalition are blamed for everything now, which waters down much of what I see as so called eye withness reports that the Americans are responsible for all the deaths.
AFP are now reporting at least 61 Iraqi's dead so far in this incident at the hands of their own people or possibly even non Iraqi Arabs assuming this has some Alqueda involvement.

Sleipnir

or possibly even non Iraqi Arabs assuming this has some Alqueda involvement.

Pure speculation on your part and therefore, not relevant.


I would imagine the Iraqi's were stoning the Americans because this sort of thing didn't happen before the Americans invaded Iraq.

I wonder if you'd care to provide a link to some information on how many children the American's have killed?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Sleipnir
Pure speculation on your part and therefore, not relevant.

It's very relevant actually as the target was Iraqi police stations so we know it was not the americans that did the bombing.

I would imagine the Iraqi's were stoning the Americans because this sort of thing didn't happen before the Americans invaded Iraq.

No people were quietly taken away and murdered instead in dark rooms if they didn't agree with Saddam:rolleyes:

I wonder if you'd care to provide a link to some information on how many children the American's have killed?

Heh!
It's interesting that you should take that line.
I don't have to provide links to that, its well discussed in other threads here.
Are you suggesting two wrongs make a right?
It's ok for the insurgents to do this because its justified due to the americans doing it?
They are both wreckless and thats a fact.
I'm pointing out here that the insurgents are hypocrites as they are showing a blatant disregard for their own people by placing bombs where their own women and children are being killed.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander as well you know!

Sleipnir

Pure speculation on your part and therefore, not relevant.

Al-Qaeda. that is the speculation on your part I was referring to.

No people were quietly taken away and murdered instead in dark rooms if they didn't agree with Saddam

So how are they're better off now?
Tell the families of those poor children;
"Terible I know but it's possible they would have been murdered by Saddam in the future and this is a much better way of being killed"


Of course It's not ok for these fighters to kill children but they have a right to defend their territory against invaders. They French Resistance did the same during WW2 and they would have been called 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' by Germany but they were fighting against invaders.

I don't have to provide links to that, its well discussed in other threads here.

Ah well, that's ok then. Just add them to the statistics.


My whole point is, it would not have happened if America had not invaded Iraq for oil


Tell me, why do you think the Iraqi's were stoning the Americans? What reasons would they have for doing so, in your opinion? Because it's fun?

pork99

Originally posted by Sleipnir
Al-Qaeda. that is the speculation on your part I was referring to.

I think it's more than just speculation;
'Al-Qaeda' tape urges Iraq civil war

They have admitted they are targreting Shi'ites. The attacks in Basra today are completely consistent with this

A MAN claiming to be a senior al-Qaeda figure that the United States believes is operating in Iraq has released a tape calling for the country's Sunni Muslims to fight Shi'ites and claiming responsibility for high-profile attacks there.

On the tape, the speaker said Shi'ite Iraqis were not true Muslims and were "the ears and the eyes of the Americans" in Iraq.

Also I think theOnion is being prophetic again. (Remember this ?)

Of course It's not ok for these fighters to kill children but they have a right to defend their territory against invaders.

Except the Nazis never gave a date for handing over power and withdrawing. You are unbelievable. If the Americans renaged on handing over power to an Iraqi government and cotinued to occupy Iraq without allowing elections then there would be some justification for an armed uprising but as it is now they are just screwing up their own country and it is dysfunctional.

They French Resistance did the same during WW2

Did they really? Any evidence?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Sleipnir
Al-Qaeda. that is the speculation on your part I was referring to.

Of course it's speculation regarding Al Queda, but then my point was in relation to the insurgents disregarding the lives of ordinary iraqi's when they are doing their attacking....
Just like the americans get accused of the same thing ...
sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander there.

So how are they're better off now?

I'm not addressing whether they are better off or not here, I'm addressing the wreckless attitudes of the insurgents.
And clearly if they waited for a hand over of soveireignity and elections, they would be much better off, at least a lot more people would be alive.
What have they to fear about elections?
I doubt that there could be a place now at this stage where the electoral process would be more open to scriutiny and fair, given that the whole worlds eyes are upon it.
The fact that the insurgents want to continue to go around promoting mahem, without waiting for the elections is plenty evidence of their wrecklessness.
Clearly they want fire fights with the americans and don't give a damn who gets in the cross fire.
Thats both wreckless and intransigent in my humble opinion and shows up their hypocrisy and fear of what their own people might vote for.

Indeed, if they had any sense, they'd realise that the people of Iraq wouldn't necessarilly vote for a pro western government, but then they don't want an elected government probably at all by the looks of things,

Sleipnir

And clearly if they waited for a hand over of soveireignity and elections, they would be much better off, at least a lot more people would be alive.

Will they be better off though?
Let's be honest, America are the ones who will decide who is even running in the election. They obviously won't do this in an obvious way but we know they won't leave Iraq unless there is someone 'in power' who they can control. They will not leave the 2nd largest oil reserves in the hands of someone completely independant of them. I know I wouldn't if I was in their position.

And yes, that was completely reckless of the insurgents to bomb in locations like that but, unfortunately, that is how guerilla warfare is fought. We know ourselves the collateral damage and civilian casualties it can cause, however this is the only way they can fight as they certainly cannot face the coalition forces on the open battlefield.

It's not a question of the Iraqi people not voting for a pro-western government, they won't be given that choice. There may be a few names on the ballot paper, but there will only be one option.

pork99

And yes, that was completely reckless of the insurgents to bomb in locations like that but, unfortunately, that is how guerilla warfare is fought.

Not insurgents, terrorists.

I may be a bit thick but I don't understand how setting out to start a civil war as those scumbags obviously are given their targets is an act of national liberation.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Sleipnir

Let's be honest, America are the ones who will decide who is even running in the election. They obviously won't do this in an obvious way but we know they won't leave Iraq unless there is someone 'in power' who they can control.

Aren't you being a bit previous there?
It might be better to conclude what the candidates are when the elections come about.
I find it interesting that all this so-called insurgency flared up so close to the date of the soveireignity hand over.
It hardens my view that they don't want a transparent government, they want their own thing.
I say let the balolot box decide.

They will not leave the 2nd largest oil reserves in the hands of someone completely independant of them. I know I wouldn't if I was in their position.

I agree with you all taxes and profits from the oil should go to the Iraqi people.
I've no doubt that the taxes will and that their economy will benefit once normality is restored.
But that might take a while as those insurgents/terrorists don't want to hurry up normality, its not on their agenda.

Heck the Iraqi's might end up getting more out of their natural resources than we do out of ours!!
As far as I'm aware all the income from that gas field off our North west coast is practically going to the operating company...
And the last I heard planning permission was refused for a land base to process it!
And not one U.S soldier involved in that rip off of natural resources here on our own doorstep.
( I'll provide links for that if you want them, later when I've time )

Sleipnir

Originally posted by pork99
Not insurgents, terrorists.

I may be a bit thick but I don't understand how setting out to start a civil war as those scumbags obviously are given their targets is an act of national liberation.

in·sur·gent
Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

That definition is fine when all they are doing is attacking U.S forces etc, but it doesn't hold very well when they are carelessly killing children, they are terrorists in my book.

"I saw a minibus full of children on fire - 15 of the 18 passengers were killed and three badly wounded."

Thats from the BBC above.
The IRA might have described themselves as insurgents too, but many episodes eg Enniskillen gave them a more accurate title-terrorists.
But at least the IRA have shown they can be open to reason.
These Insurgents/terrorists seem to have geared up their fight when it looked like elections were getting closer.
That kind of firmly places them more in the terrorist grouping in my opinion with suspect motives.

Lex_Diamonds

The people who carry out these attacks are very clever in so far as they know exactly which buttons to press. Its a methodical and effective approach in turning the populace against the coalition. The Iraqi people will look for someone to blame and and we all know who is visible on the ground. Id say those involved in the latest attack were foreign militants.

mr_angry

Originally posted by Sleipnir
I would imagine the Iraqi's were stoning the Americans because this sort of thing didn't happen before the Americans invaded Iraq.

I wonder if you'd care to provide a link to some information on how many children the American's have killed?

I have to say Sleipnir, I think that is one of the most biased and downright childish posts I have ever had the misfortune to read on this board. Your reply to this topic is "Look how many children the US have killed!!!". I think that is frankly outrageous. I'm anti-US Gov. myself, but I think trying to stencil some kind of blame onto the US for this is apalling.

Having said that, I think the ordinary Iraqis are none too bright in stoning soldiers going to help the few remaining children who hadn't been blown to smithereens. I fail to agree with Sleipnir's logic on that one. The soldiers were British, by the way, not American.

Al-Qaeda. that is the speculation on your part I was referring to.

And it is speculation. With the number of Iraqi's that are armed, and disgruntled with Coalition occupation it could be any number of groups that could have done this. AQ, is attributed with just about everything, when something happens.

Except the Nazis never gave a date for handing over power and withdrawing. You are unbelievable. If the Americans renaged on handing over power to an Iraqi government and cotinued to occupy Iraq without allowing elections then there would be some justification for an armed uprising but as it is now they are just screwing up their own country and it is dysfunctional.

True abt the Nazi's. But you're forgetting one thing. The Coalition have made promises that they would improve the standards of living, pacify the area completely and stop all the violence thats been occuring. They've failed so far to do any of these things. Also, Iraqi's are beginning to wonder if this is just another example of the West trying to take over completely. AQ is a huge influence, but so too is the coalitions' lack of prgression.

Originally posted by klaz
Also, Iraqi's are beginning to wonder if this is just another example of the West trying to take over completely. AQ is a huge influence, but so too is the coalitions' lack of prgression.

It's a pity more of them wouldn't wonder about the boné Fidé's of the insurgents that are promoting all the mahem.
They aren't interested in law and order, it might mean normality, which might mean elections,which might mean....what might it mean....?
Ah yes, winning a popular vote.
Not very likely if you are blowing up children.

Not very likely if you are blowing up children.

Which applies to just abt every group in Iraq, - AQ, the coalition, insurgents etc. Its sad, but after a year of occupation, I really haven't seen much change from when the Coalition first went in there.

dathi1

The other side of the coin is revealing itself, where Iraqi insurgents are showing they couldn't care less about their own people and like to maim and murder their own people including Children with impunity.

You mean Al Quida.....The National Arab Socialist regime that your freinds removed used to throw these people from the tops of buildings. Al Quida murders women and children everywhere but the yanks are beating their quota in Iraq every day. Freedom loving people...Stay the Course...Killers....Kill the Evil Doers...Kill anything that moves.

RicardoSmith

For some reason armchair generals forget that the innocent always get killed and injured in any form of warfare. Whats the body count on both sides now?

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Earthman
That definition is fine when all they are doing is attacking U.S forces etc, but it doesn't hold very well when they are carelessly killing children, they are terrorists in my book.

Thats from the BBC above.
The IRA might have described themselves as insurgents too, but many episodes eg Enniskillen gave them a more accurate title-terrorists.
But at least the IRA have shown they can be open to reason.
These Insurgents/terrorists seem to have geared up their fight when it looked like elections were getting closer.
That kind of firmly places them more in the terrorist grouping in my opinion with suspect motives.

Well the American forces in Iraq are referring to them as insurgents so I'd rather use their book than yours.

Sand

Its a horrific crime with an utter contempt for civillian life but is anyone surprised? Im not - the forces fighting against the coalition are terrorists and thugs who represent only themselves. The terrorists/insurgents are as quick to target their "fellow" Iraqis as they are the coalition forces, western civillians and the Iraqis police force.

Even those who claim their terrorism is somehow representitive of the Iraqis as a whole cant be serious. Theyre simply grasping at straws to try and find something to support their views on the coalition, and if they seriously examine the insrugents and their goals theyll agree, if only to themselves, that its ludicrous to think there is such a thing as an Iraqi resistance.

There might be Sunni terrorists, there might be Shia militias, the Kurds have practically their own army and state. Are Sunni terrorists, terrified of being in a Shia dominated state ( much as Unionists were in pre-Free State Ireland ) representitive of Shias. Are Shia Islamic extremists who want to set up a theocracy representitive of the Kurds?

arcadegame2004

Of course the bombers are terrorists. They intentionally targeted buses full of children going to kindergarten and playschool. The most defenceless of potential victims. They are truly sick. And they did it to their own people, not the Americans. There was nothing "patriotic" in this. There is plenty barbaric in it though.

Some here seem to be equating the Baathist regime and the bombers with the Americans. I strongly disagree with this, in the sense that the Baathists deliberately killed innocents, as the discovery of at least 300,000 (I kid you not) bodies in mass-graves the length and breadth of Iraq testify. However many the Americans have killed, it definitely does not compare to that figure. 600,000 alone were killed by Saddam as retaliation against the Shia rebellion in 1992. And I doubt that the Americans were deliberately targeting innocent civilians.

Even so, I cannot absolve the Americans from all blame for the problems currently engulfing Iraq. Their soldiers are far too triggerhappy. Responding to slingshot attacks with helicopter-gunship rockets (according to one claim made by an American soldier in Iraq) is clearly the height of overreaction. They need to emulate the tactics of the British in Basra, where negotiation and dialogue has helped keep the situation there quiet, at least in terms of preventing rebellion by the Shia population in that area. I am also strongly critical of the Americans' exit-strategy from Iraq. They plan to hand over a peculiar version of "sovereignty" to Iraq in June. I say so-called, because it will be a puppet-government, hand-picked by Paul Bremer, Americas Viceroy in Iraq. It is unelected, and can claim no mandate from the Iraqi people. Furthermore, the Americans will retain much control over certain aspects of the Government, including over security. Then elections will have to wait another year. I firmly believe that this cannot enjoy the support that handing over full control to an elected government could have. The Americans should have moved quickly towards elections after the invasion, with the compilation of a register of electors. Instead they long-fingered this in favour of the interests of Halliburton (Dick Cheney's former company) and other American oil-companies (especially regarding the privatisation of the Iraqi oil-industry - which, while possibly a good idea, is too important not to be left to an elected Iraqi government). This plays into the hands of conspiracy-theorists who believe that America simply invaded Iraq to poach its natural-resources. I personally believe that Iraq was already successfully disarmed by the UN, and that the real imperative for this war was Bush's desire to finish "the job that his father started". On balance the removal of a dictatorship has to be a good thing, and I actually supported the war. But I have been greatly disappointed since both by the failure to uncover the nonexistant WMD, and at the cynicism of the US in longfingering the promised democracy in favour of the oil-interests of Cheney and Bush's cronies in Texas. Hopefully Blair will be urging caution to the American administration in terms of urging them to follow the UK's Basra approach in the rest of Iraq, but with such a self-righteous and downright arrogant American Government in charge I am not very confident this advice will get the attention it merits.

RicardoSmith

Good balanced psot there arcadegame2004. However I think people use the term terrorists too easily these days. Look at our own countries history. You can't drive past castles and bullet pocketed buildings in Dublin, and not reflect on that.

arcadegame2004

Ricardo I think you can't really compare the 1916 rebels with the Basra bombers. Remember the Republican heroes of 1916 and 1919-1921 did not target civilians.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Ricardo I think you can't really compare the 1916 rebels with the Basra bombers. Remember the Republican heroes of 1916 and 1919-1921 did not target civilians.

...but the non-heroic republicans did. Read Tom Barry's book.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Ricardo I think you can't really compare the 1916 rebels with the Basra bombers. Remember the Republican heroes of 1916 and 1919-1921 did not target civilians.

I'm just making the comment that we have been occupied a number of times in our history. Every time those that fought against the occuping forces are labelled terrorists. I'm not justifying the killing of innocent, but both sides do it. In everywar the innocent get killed. Usually unintentionally, but that doesn't change the fact, if it be a very inaccurate car bomb or mine, or a highly accurate smart bomb that does it.

Would you say the "insurgents" murdered the school children intentionally. In that they were the primary target?

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
Its a horrific crime with an utter contempt for civillian life but is anyone surprised?

Yes indeed, wars of conquest tend to be nasty businesses with utter contempt for civilian life.

Im not - the forces fighting against the coalition are terrorists and thugs who represent only themselves.

Didn't you once preach here that "Being moral has never been dependant on being the majority." Rofl. :rolleyes: Bit of the old doublethink there. If you don't take what you say remotely seriously, why the bloody hell should anyone else?

The terrorists/insurgents are as quick to target their "fellow" Iraqis as they are the coalition forces, western civillians and the Iraqis police force.

You wouldn't accept that US troops are deliberately killing Iraqi civilians but seem 100% sure that insurgents are. If it's ok for US troops to kill 600 civilians while trying to get a high value target like Al Sadr, then surely from the other side's point of view, it's ok to kill a few kiddies while trying to bag a few evil invading troops and collaborating cops. Some people demanded this ridiculous war, so why should they start whining when people get killed by the wrong side in an improper fashion? Surely every single death is part of the price that's worth paying for a democratic westernised Iraq? Either accept the consequences or shut up.

Even those who claim their terrorism is somehow representitive of the Iraqis as a whole cant be serious. Theyre simply grasping at straws to try and find something to support their views on the coalition, and if they seriously examine the insrugents and their goals theyll agree, if only to themselves, that its ludicrous to think there is such a thing as an Iraqi resistance.

Is that another quote from your new hero Mr.Goebbels with a few words substituted? I think maybe you've been overdosing on your nazi propaganda there a bit sunshine.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Of course the bombers are terrorists. They intentionally targeted buses full of children going to kindergarten and playschool.

Who said anything about them intentionally targetting buses full of children?
What is your source for that information?
What is the proof that the bus was the intended target?
Or is that an assumption you're making in order to apply the term 'terrorist'?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Sleipnir
Who said anything about them intentionally targetting buses full of children?
What is your source for that information?
What is the proof that the bus was the intended target?
Or is that an assumption you're making in order to apply the term 'terrorist'?

Well I'm sure the Omagh bombers didn't intentionally target the roughly 30 people they murdered there either:rolleyes:
The fact remains that leaving a car bomb in that location with total disregard for anyone passing and on a school bus route and with no warning qualifies fairly well to be described as an act of wanton wreckless terrorism.
One can add total hypocrisy into that too considering it was fellow Iraqi's/moslems that they Blew to bits arising out of their( the bombers ) thinking that their rights/opinions counted for more than some of their co-religionists.
I believe 20 children died.
It happens on the other side too of course, but at least you will usually get an expression of regret from the coalition ( which does not excuse their actions either by the way ) I wonder will there be an expression of regret from these bombers:rolleyes:
That said, there is as clear as day been an escalation of this type of stuff in the last few weeks and it's obvious that it's came about due to the soveireignity transfer and elections coming up.
They don't want them and it's as simple as that, otherwise they would have been blowing their fellow citizens to bits in Basra months ago.

Sand

but the non-heroic republicans did. Read Tom Barry's book.

Then they were terrorists. It doesnt matter if that makes us uncomftable with our history, or with the commemorating of them. If they deliberately targetted civillians then they were terrorists.

Arcade is right that the 1916 revolutionaries did not target civillians in general, afaik anyway - they can be viewed as guerillas/military whatever. The IRA of the War of Independance fought a much more bitter war - civillians were targetted, especially protestant landlords and supposed informers.

Every time those that fought against the occuping forces are labelled terrorists.

Thats true, and the the forces fighting an occupying force or government always label themselves as freedom fighters. Both sides are attempting to win a propaganda war.

Past that name calling, if terrorist or freedom fighter is to mean anything at all then you have to ask what defines a terrorist and to my mind, it is the deliberate, premeditated and intentional targeting of civillians. In wars accidents happen, soldiers can panick, shells can miss their targets or intelligence can be bad. Civillians can die from these mistakes and accidents. For terrorists these problems dont exist, as civillians are just as good a target as anything else. Perhaps even the best target for their purposes.

Would you say the "insurgents" murdered the school children intentionally. In that they were the primary target?

The method of attack was a suicide bomber apparently. That is the smartest bomb around, able to evade all manner of defences, get to the target and trigger to kill dozens. A bomb so smart that it could determine that the school bus would be in the blast range, and yet not intersted in waiting the 60 seconds it would take for civillian traffic to pass by before triggering. As such, those civillians were very much the target.

Who said anything about them intentionally targetting buses full of children?

See above - the suicide bomber triggered knowing the bus was going to be hit by the bomb - he didnt care. He could have waited 60 seconds. He didnt. Civillians are just as good a target as anything else for terrorists.

bonkey

Originally posted by Rock Climber
The fact remains that leaving a car bomb in that location with total disregard for anyone passing and on a school bus route and with no warning qualifies fairly well to be described as an act of wanton wreckless terrorism.

So you would also have to agree that dropping bombs, firing missiles, using cluster munitions etc. in civilian areas are also showing a total disregard for anyone innocent who may be in the area, and with no warning such actions must also be classified as wanton, reckless terrorism?

This is what I don't get. The US uses serious hardware on valid targets, innocents get killed, and thats regrettable but unerstandable and even acceptable because the innocent people weren't the targets, just unavoidable collateral damage, and hey - this is war, people die.

The rebels/insurgents/whatever-you-decide-to-call-them do likewise for their valid targets, with the technology available to them, innocents get killed, and thats nothing but reckless terrorism.

Oh the standards they are a doublin'

jc

Oh the standards they are a doublin'

Bonkey, for once i find myself agreeing with you.

Take Israeli attacks on Palestinian areas. Any attacks that result in civilian casualties are criticised here, and yet, US attacks that deal as much damage to civilians are brushed aside as accidents. Its one of those things i never really understand abt posters opinions....

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
the suicide bomber triggered knowing the bus was going to be hit by the bomb - he didnt care.

Any evidence to back that up? No. Thought not. You won't accept that according to people who were actually in Fallujah, US snipers might have been shooting at civilians, but you'll make up your own version of this event and actually have the gall to give us an amazing insight into what the suicide bomber was thinking at the time, because it suits your bizarre good vs evil view of reality. Like I said, you wanted this war, so don't start throwing the toys out of the pram when people get killed the wrong way. It's all worth it remember. And under Saddam, all the kiddies would have been raped/tortured/eaten etc etc anyway.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by bonkey
So you would also have to agree that dropping bombs, firing missiles, using cluster munitions etc. in civilian areas are also showing a total disregard for anyone innocent who may be in the area, and with no warning such actions must also be classified as wanton, reckless terrorism?
jc

Yes and no.
Yes it's wanton and wreckless, but no it is not terrorism, in my humble opinion.
There is at least some warning, some indication in most cases and at least some sanction when a country is doing the bombing, although I'll agree no sanction would work in the case of the States.
Theres beggar all sanction in the case of AlQueda or these "insurgents"
Democratic governments ordering a bombing (and I use the term loosely for Bush) can be kicked out of office, these insurgents cannot.
I fail to see the double standard in distinguishing between them.
If you re-read my last post you will see that I underlined the part where apoligies are no excuse in the case of the coalition, so I would have thought my opinion on their wrecklessness was clear enough)
To put it as simply as possible:
One is bad the other is worse.
I come to that view, considering that this "insurgent" activity especially in the south is rearing up now and not months ago,my suspicions being as pointed out earlier that they want to stop any progress towards democracy.

Sand

So you would also have to agree that dropping bombs, firing missiles, using cluster munitions etc. in civilian areas are also showing a total disregard for anyone innocent who may be in the area, and with no warning such actions must also be classified as wanton, reckless terrorism?

Fighting battles in civillian areas is not a war crime, the 4th GC specifically states that the presence of protected persons does not mean an area cannot be fought in. It is a war crime to use civillians as human shields. It is a war crime to target civillians. How to reconcile all this? If you deliberately target civillians then youre a terrorist, if you dont then youre not - an accident may occur where civillians may die but that does not make you a terrorist. A premediated murder is not morally equivalent to an accidental death.

Oh the standards they are a doublin'

The only double standards I see applied are when civillians die due to a mistake or accident on the part of coalition forces and a hue and cry about war crimes rises up, and when civillians are murdered by terrorists suddenly I hear that terrorist attacks are the only means these poor people have available to them, how desperate they must be, how everyone would be a terrorist if they were in their shoes and so on and so forth - people have declared on this very board that they would be suicide bombers if they were palestinian.

So its a war crime if civillians die accidentially, but if a terrorist blows up a school bus deliberately then its just the way war is?

Yeah, I guess standards are doubling.

US attacks that deal as much damage to civilians are brushed aside as accidents.

The important distinction is that you approach a case without the preconception that Coalition troops *must* be committing war crimes, and thus its suspicious that a serviceman hasnt been convicted of war crimes. If the evidence suggests it was an accident and civillians werent the target then it was an accident and civillians werent the target. Ive yet to see any case where the evidence suggests Coalition troops deliberately and knowingly murdered civillians.

Its the difference between objectivty and subjectivty.

RicardoSmith

Theres no way of knowing did the bomber intentionally detonate the bomb or did it go accidentally. You would have thought he would have waited for a passing patrol to detonate his bomb. But its not unusual for home made bombs to go off accidentally when the bomber is handling the device or setting the timer etc.

I don't see how that is any different dropping a couple of 1000lb LGB's down a bomb shelter full of civilians and then going oops, sorry those things happen. (Actually if they weren't there in the first place it wouldn't have happened. )I'm sure theres people who think that was done deliberately too.

But hey lets all jump to conclusions 'cause we know all the facts.

halkar

Why does AQ gets blamed for everything these days:rolleyes: Same for Saudi bombings. I think they really made a big if not a huge thing out of AQ these days. If someone f@rts on the bus blame will be to AQ:D

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Fighting battles in civillian areas is not a war crime,

OK - lets remember that a bit further down here...

an accident may occur where civillians may die but that does not make you a terrorist. A premediated murder is not morally equivalent to an accidental death.

Lets also remember that....

The only double standards I see applied are when civillians die due to a mistake or accident on the part of coalition forces and a hue and cry about war crimes rises up, and when civillians are murdered by terrorists suddenly I hear that terrorist attacks are the only means these poor people have available to them, how desperate they must be, how everyone would be a terrorist if they were in their shoes and so on and so forth

Yes, I agree that these are double standards. But the only ones?

Well, lets just have a look here.

We have you, Sand, who has argued before that targetting valid military resources is not an act of terrorism. We have you, at the top of this post, saying that fighting in civilian areas is not explicitly a problem - after all the US do that too. We have you saying - here and elsewhere - that civilian deaths - when not the primary target - may be considered as inevitable casualties of war.

And yet, when some Iraqi insurgents attack a valid military resource located in/near a populated civilian area, with ensuing civilian casualties, you and others maintain that the people who caused it are terrorists, and that it is unacceptable because of the civilian deaths.

So its a war crime if civillians die accidentially, but if a terrorist blows up a school bus deliberately then its just the way war is?

So what you're saying is that the car-bomb aimed at a police station was deliberately targetting the civilians travelling on the same road, and not the police station that it blew up beside? Where, exactly, do you get this reliable information from?

Personally, I think that the insurgents acted irresponsibly - that they could use their existing technology to less effective military use, but with fewer civilian casualties.

Then again, I also maintain the same about the US military - that they choose to draw a line between effectiveness and care that isn't as close to the "care" side that their technology allows.

I criticise both sides equally for it - these attacks were wrong, but only to the same extent that many comparable US attacks are also wrong. [/i]Not enough care was taken for the civilians[/i]

The important distinction is that you approach a case without the preconception that Coalition troops *must* be committing war crimes, and thus its suspicious that a serviceman hasnt been convicted of war crimes.

One should also approach a case without the preconception that an attack at a police station was actually targetting the school-bus which happened to be on the road at the same time.

I generally don't assume that US attacks are deliberately targetting civilian casualties, or even that civilian deaths necessarily constitute a war-crime. I do assume - quite often - that the deaths could have been avoided or lessened, as I do in this case.

If the evidence suggests it was an accident and civillians werent the target then it was an accident and civillians werent the target.

And what suggests in his case that the civilians were the target? Why blow up the bomb outside a police-station, if what you were after was some civilian road-deaths?

Ive yet to see any case where the evidence suggests Coalition troops deliberately and knowingly murdered civillians.

They've done it plenty of times, where they have known that attacking valid military targets will result in civilian casualties, but refused to let a "human shield" deter them.

The coalition and their supporters are using police-stations in civilian-populated areas as "power-centres" - places from which they can apply their power to maintain or obtain control. They are now using the exact same "human shield" argument to proclaim how abhorrent the attacks on their resource was.

Its the difference between objectivty and subjectivty.

No - objectivity is when you apply your standards to both sides, not to the good guys instead of the bad guys.

jc

Sand

And yet, when some Iraqi insurgents attack a valid military resource located in/near a populated civilian area, with ensuing civilian casualties, you and others maintain that the people who caused it are terrorists, and that it is unacceptable because of the civilian deaths.

I thought I covered this ....

Fighting battles in civillian areas is not a war crime, the 4th GC specifically states that the presence of protected persons does not mean an area cannot be fought in. It is a war crime to use civillians as human shields. It is a war crime to target civillians. How to reconcile all this? If you deliberately target civillians then youre a terrorist, if you dont then youre not - an accident may occur where civillians may die but that does not make you a terrorist. A premediated murder is not morally equivalent to an accidental death.

The terrorists can target the police station. They can do so in a civillian area so long as they dont target civillians. It might be a stretch to describe cops as military forces but I can see how its arguable. It wasnt a car bomb that was used. If someone drove a car bomb up outside a police station and got out, walked away being reasonably sure that there was no civillians in the blast radius, but the bus then arrived just as it blew up then it would be a reckless act but he wouldnt have targeted the civillians.

But it wasnt a car bomb. It was a suicide bomber, a weapon system with the greatest amount of human oversight and override. When the suicide bomber triggered he could see everything around him - he knew that bus was there and he triggered it anyway. The civillians were targets as well.

He could have waited 60 seconds for the civillians to leave. The police station wasnt going to sprout legs and run off. He didnt. Its a war crime to knowingly target civillians. Thats what he did. Hes a terrorist.

Then again, I also maintain the same about the US military - that they choose to draw a line between effectiveness and care that isn't as close to the "care" side that their technology allows.

I agree that the coalition sometimes acts in a reckless manner, or a manner that indicates an absolute and often ill founded confidence in their technology, but Ive yet to see a case where theyve knowingly killed civillians. The terrorist in this case did.

I criticise both sides equally for it - these attacks were wrong, but only to the same extent that many comparable US attacks are also wrong.

From my perspective, that sounds like you making accidental deaths and murders morally equivalent.

One should also approach a case without the preconception that an attack at a police station was actually targetting the school-bus which happened to be on the road at the same time.

I didnt, but I cant quite understand how a person can miss a school bus - theyre fairly big and noisy. Its unlikely that on a morning, when visibility is at its best, that he wouldnt notice a bus.

When you eliminate that the the other option is that he was aware of the bus but considered civillians to be valid targets.

They've done it plenty of times, where they have known that attacking valid military targets will result in civilian casualties, but refused to let a "human shield" deter them.

When terrorists operate out of urban centers using civillians as cover for their attacks you face a choice - do you surrender urban centers and their populations to the mercy of terrorists who hapilly target civillians?

Or do you find and eliminate the terrorists, whilst not targeting the civillians? When you choose the second option youve got to accept there will be casualties amongst civillians - but as the 4th GC states conducting military operations in civillian areas is not a war crime ( the terrorists are probably guilty of using civillians as human shields if anything ) and if the coalition forces do not deliberately target civillians, as you agree they dont, then I dont see how you can say they deliberately and knowingly murdered civillians.

Theres not been a single case that Ive yet heard of where soldiers have executed civillians - many have died in crossfire or if heavy weapons missed, but no one fired a weapon knowing they would kill a civillian afaik.

No - objectivity is when you apply your standards to both sides, not to the good guys instead of the bad guys.

I thought I did?

RicardoSmith

Sand...

There no way of knowing that the bomb was deliberately triggered. It could have gone off accidentally. The fact that no Coalition troops were in the area makes this more likely, than he tried and succeed in targeting a moving vehicle with no value. Theres also the fact that a person sacrificed his life for this. Why would be pick a target that has no military, religious, or political value? It just doesn't make sense.

You assume that all weapons are clinical, surgical devices that the operator can aim with precision. Wereas in reality even with the most sophisticated weapons theres always the possibility that they'll go astray and kill civilians or at least not the intended target. Thats just the way it is.

If thats true for the Coalition then its true for the "terrorists" even more so in fact since the're technology is less accurate and they have little training.

Critising the "terrorists" for using urban centers is also a bit dim. War isn't about fighting fair. Thats war. Theres no rules. The Coalition knew they'd be fighting that kind of a battle when they entered Iraq. They also knew it would lead to civilian deaths. They made a decision to do it. So they did it knowing there would be civilian deaths.

I not making a value judgement, but everyone has blood on their hands.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
War "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties"

Terrorist "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism"

Terrorisim "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Rebel "To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority. To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sand

There no way of knowing that the bomb was deliberately triggered. It could have gone off accidentally.

Thats true, but unlikely given it was built, fitted and travelled all the way to this area without triggering accidentially.

Theres also the fact that a person sacrificed his life for this. Why would be pick a target that has no military, religious, or political value? It just doesn't make sense.

Of course it does, to a terrorist. He blew up a police station and killed some school children - coalition troops rushing to help the survivors were stoned. It makes absolute sense to a terrorist to kill those children. It makes absolute sense to a terrorist to kill police officers trying to establish security. The more misery and chaos they can inflict on people, the more they can delegitimise the occupying powers, the more they can spark the Shias into retaliating against the Sunnis, the easier it is for the terrorists to sieze power.

Dont be so shocked that terrorists murder civillians or that they have a different mindset to us when it comes to acceptable conduct, it is afterall what defines them as terrorists.

You assume that all weapons are clinical, surgical devices that the operator can aim with precision.

No I dont - I absolutely do not assume all weapons are clinical, surgical devices that the operator can aim with precision. If that was true then there would be no accidental deaths.

But I do assume that a suicide bomber is a weapon with the greatest possible human override built in. It wasnt a thrown grenade and it wasnt a missile in flight with no chance to disarm it. The guy deliberately triggered it when he reached the target area and a split second later those kids were killed. I dont believe he could miss a school bus in the morning. I believe he could wait for 60 seconds for that bus to pass, but he didnt. They were valid targets under a terrorists reasoning. More shock value.

Critising the "terrorists" for using urban centers is also a bit dim. War isn't about fighting fair. Thats war. Theres no rules.

Wrong - there are the Geneva Conventions which are created specifically to regulate military conduct in warfare. Militaries are expected to abide by them and punish breaches of them by their forces.

If there were truly no rules then the Coalition could just naplam bomb Fallujah until everyone in it was dead - then it would be pacified. You wouldnt have a problem with that? Youd argue then that there was no rules in warfare?

I not making a value judgement, but everyone has blood on their hands.

You should make a value judgement, this is when we have to make a value judgements rather than retreat to empty phrases like the world isnt black and white, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter and so on. Whats the point in having values if were not going to use them as a reference to decide that this is wrong, or this is right?

RicardoSmith

The primary target was the police station. The mini bus was in the general traffic outside. It wasn't specifically targeted, but sure they weren't too concerned with who else got caught in the blast. Maybe he didn't see the bus?

Yes there are rules/agreements about what weapons are lawful, but then the US only abides by the rules that it wants to. The use of land mines, for example. Which the US uses in Korea and is planning to use in Iraq. Some say the use of cluster bombs, bomblets should also be banned. Also the Coalition is in the cities too! So surely they shouldn't be allowed to fight there either?

Fighting in urban areas was always going to happen once the Coalition entered the cities. If they weren't in the cities the're wouldn't be fighting. So eveyone accepts that. As for fighting in the open well, what army in the world could face the US in open battle so you'd want to be off your rocker to suggest that.

I don't agree with lots of things on both sides in Iraq. But then I don't agree with things in loads of other places around the world, like in Africa where genocide is common place, but theres no oil. But if you enter into an urban conflict and the opposing forces are massively out gunned and they get pushed into a corner you have to expect things to get very dirty.

Not an urban enviroment obviously but, in Vietnam the VC wouldn't hesitate to kill their own. in order to achieve their aims and to fight and hide in the villages. Why would Iraq be different? Maybe its all those WMD they've hidden away somewhere.

Sand

Maybe he didn't see the bus?

In the morning with good visibility, miss a large, noisy school bus? Nah.

the US only abides by the rules that it wants to. The use of land mines, for example.

I dont think land mines are covered under the genva convention...could be wrong. AFAIk the US isnt signed up to any anti-landmine pacts. You cant blame them for not adhering to a treaty they havent signed up to.

Also the Coalition is in the cities too! So surely they shouldn't be allowed to fight there either?

Theyre the occupying force - its their responsibility to provide security and enforce law and order. Also its not a war crime to fight in a city, but it is a war crime to use civillians as human shields as it leads to civillian casualties. I think even the greatest apologist for the terrorists would admit theyre using the civillians there as cover to strike at the coalition from.

As for fighting in the open well, what army in the world could face the US in open battle so you'd want to be off your rocker to suggest that.

An inabilty to wage war successfully in accordance with the GC doesnt give you the right to break the GC.

Africa where genocide is common place, but theres no oil.

The "oil explain everything" thesis doesnt explain why oil rich Sudan is enduring genocide of tribes of Africans by government backed Arab militias and yet the oil hungry military dictatorships of the world havent invaded.

But if you enter into an urban conflict and the opposing forces are massively out gunned and they get pushed into a corner you have to expect things to get very dirty.

Still doesnt absolve them of their responsibility for their own actions. You wouldnt be saying the same if some US platoon got stressed out from all the attacks and wasted some Iraqi civillians for revenge. You probably wouldnt be saying the same if a coalition shell missed its target and hit a mosque or something.

RicardoSmith

Its like you've got a gun and the other guys got a rock. You dictate the rules because you got a gun. You ask him to wear bright colours and stand out in the open. But he doesn't like those odds, and dresses up in disguise and hits you with the rock when you aren't looking. You say not fair, he says not fair. To me both sides are unfair.

Was it not a minibus in the middle of rush hour? Seems easy to miss to me, especially in a hot dusty city where you are trying not be detected and are intent on reaching your target. You might aswell say he waited for a school bus to come along. But in fact its all just fiction. Theres no way to know what his intentions were, just what the outcome was.

Ah so rules don't apply if you don't sign up for them. Somehow I doubt the Suicide bombers of the world sign these kinda pacts. But like I said, ignore the "rules" that don't suit yah. Very one sided.

The reason the coalition force got stoned afterwards was because the local population felt the coalition wasn't doing much of a job protecting them. Yes the insturgents were using the civilian polulation as cover. No its not fair. But then they see this as war and war isn't fair. No one fights a war in a way that best suits the opposing force. Yes thats no fair, but like I said they see it as war.

Oil hungry military dictatorships of the world havent invaded....yet.

Actually your saying its ok its a genuine mistake, I'm saying its never ok if by accident or not. As soon as you decide to use force, civilian casualties always happen. Thats the nature of modern warfare. The way to minimise that is not to take the battle to the urban centers, which the coalition have done.

vorbis

RicardoSmith an occupying army kinda does need to be in the urban areas. Still like Sand I await with interest your comments on any future mistake by the Americans that leads to civilian casualties. By an extension of you logic, the US should napalm Falujah, after all if they're proving a pain to fight, then use what weapons you have to eliminate the problem.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by vorbis
RicardoSmith an occupying army kinda does need to be in the urban areas. Still like Sand I await with interest your comments on any future mistake by the Americans that leads to civilian casualties. By an extension of you logic, the US should napalm Falujah, after all if they're proving a pain to fight, then use what weapons you have to eliminate the problem.

Just like Churchill when he tried to gas the Kurds?

Fortunately internal US politics ties the US hands.

Basically my comment would be sh*t happens. But on both sides. My problem is with Sands viewpoint of when the Arabs do it, its intentional when the Coalition (actually usually just the US) its an accident. Thats when the suicide bomber is using low tech to do it on his own and the US is using a couple of million dollars worth of targeting gear to achive the same mistake.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
I dont believe he could miss a school bus in the morning. I believe he could wait for 60 seconds for that bus to pass, but he didnt.

Just a point of information, it was a mini-bus.

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Basically my comment would be sh*t happens.

Doesn't mean it's acceptable.

RicardoSmith

Doesn't mean it's acceptable....whomever does it

Sand

Ah so rules don't apply if you don't sign up for them. Somehow I doubt the Suicide bombers of the world sign these kinda pacts. But like I said, ignore the "rules" that don't suit yah. Very one sided.

The GC defines the conduct of militaries - if you dont abide by them then youre not a military, youre a terrorist, which is my point regarding the deliberate targeting of civillians by the terrorists in Iraq.

The land mines treaty is just that, a treaty - adhered to by those who have signed up to it. It has no bearing on classification of military and terrorists forces. The UN peacekeepers in Cyprus patrol landmined borders between the Greeks and Cypriots dont they? Are the UN terrorists too?

My problem is with Sands viewpoint of when the Arabs do it, its intentional when the Coalition (actually usually just the US) its an accident.

Arabs? I think youll find there are plenty of Arabs in the Iraqi police force who oppose terrorism - dont confuse politics with race. When terrorists deliberatley and knowingly kill civillians, then theyre terrorists. Thats what defines them. Ive yet to see a case of coalition soldiers deliberately and knowingly kill civillians.

Sorry. I cant say theyve committed war crimes just because the terrorists theyre fighting have. Its certainly possible that coalition forces *may* have committed a war crime - but Ive seen no evidence of it. On the other hand theres plenty of evidence that the terrorists are targeting civillians, in this case and others.

Just like Churchill when he tried to gas the Kurds?

Im sorry, was there a note of distaste in that remark? Surely, as you say, **** happens in war, there are no rules after all. War isnt fair. Churchill reckoned those kurds were a problem - youre not going to make a value judgement on what he had planned?

Doesn't mean it's acceptable....whomever does it

Agreed, but its the terrorists who are doing it.

Memnoch

the problem with arguing with sand is that even if you present to him convincing evidence he will just deny it or dismiss it off hand...

more so he refuses to see basic commen sense pointed out to him
and refuses to see the obvious paradox in his arguements, so Sand is the first person to go on my ignore list... i just can't read his posts any more they enrage me too much with the obvious blindness, purposefull though it may be

RicardoSmith

Launching air and missile attacks against Iraq was going to kill Civilians. Invading Iraq was going to kill civilians. The coalition knowingly did those things yes? Your making a distinction on killing civilians by accident, vs killing them deliberately. But you don't invade a country by accident. You don't drop bombs on a city by accident.

Look at all the cities that have been bombed from the air, your definition would make all those airmen terrorists. The Blitz, Japan, Desden, Bagdad. They were attacks on civilian centers. Theres no such think as a 100% precision attack. In war mistakes happen. Yet the force that be make a deliberate decision to make an attack even though they KNOW there will be civilian deaths because of that decision.

Its part of the game plan. Make the civilian population believe that if they surrendered attacks on them (even if they are not directly targeted) will stop. At the end of a day when a 1000lb comes through your roof, if its there by accident or on purpose is not really going to make a lot of difference is it. The local population is not going to see it in that light are they?

What and whoms classification of terrorists are you referring to?

My point about churchill was that he was prepared to use the weapons that he had to hand. Just like "terrorists" do. I'm saying both are wrong. I'm not making a distinction.

I should have used an alternative term like insurgents or rebels not Arabs in my post. My point was not to distinguish the coalition from everyone else in the region. Of course there are Arabs in the coalition too so it was poor choice of word to use. But my point is still valid even if Sand tried to drag it OT, in that when one side makes a mistake its an accident, but when the other side does it its deliberate. That just not a balanced viewpoint.

So its the "Terrorists" alone who are killing civilians. The coalition hasn't killed any?

AmenToThat

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Aren't you being a bit previous there?
It might be better to conclude what the candidates are when the elections come about.
I find it interesting that all this so-called insurgency flared up so close to the date of the soveireignity hand over.
It hardens my view that they don't want a transparent government, they want their own thing.
I say let the balolot box decide.

Paul Bremmer has already stated that if he doesnt like who wins elections or he deems any laws (sharia) not to be what he considers to be right he has the poer of veto over and above any Iraqi authority.